Share

Congress' Chief Climate Denier Lamar Smith and NOAA Are at War

UNITED STATES - JULY 8: A strong storm front passes over the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, July 8, 2014. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

Bill Clark/Getty Images

As Washington power plays go, the fight between Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Science Committee, and Kathryn Sullivan, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, fits a Capitol Hill narrative. Arguments over e-mails? Check. Subpoenas issued to federal staffers? Check. Allegations of cover-up and conspiracy by one side, claims of harassment and bullying by the other? Check.

The difference here is that this fight is about science, and in particular, how the government conducts basic scientific research into climate change—science that many elected members of the Republican party doubt even exists. It’s Benghazi, but for nerds.

During his 28 years in Congress—the last two as science chair—Smith, who represents the San Antonio area, has become de facto leader of the House GOP climate change skeptics’ caucus. He’s opponent-in-chief of air pollution rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the nation’s foremost critic of the National Science Foundation’s peer-review process. In past battles, Smith has forced agency heads to turn over thousands of e-mails and other documents in search of malfeasance, misspent funds, or corruption. He has never found any of those things.

This time, the object of Smith’s ire is an astronaut, veteran of three missions, the first American woman to walk in space (during a 1984 shuttle mission), Navy captain, PhD geologist, and former science museum director. Kathryn Sullivan, in other words, is tougher than you.

Perhaps that’s why she refused to roll over for Smith’s latest climate investigation. The target: a research paper by NOAA scientists stating that a 15-year pause in the overall rise in global temperatures—used by climate skeptics to undercut the idea that global warming is, you know, actually happening—was actually just a data error.

In the journal Science last June, the NOAA researchers said they corrected a discrepancy between temperature readings from ships and sensor buoys, and incorporated new data from land-based monitors in the Arctic. That didn’t fly with Smith. “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,” the congressman said in a statement last month. “The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.”

Smith wanted to depose the scientists and get a list of the documents NOAA was using.

Sullivan said no.

Specifically, Sullivan sent NOAA staffers up to Capitol Hill twice since the paper came out. She sent Smith the data, links, and other documents NOAA based the study on. And when Smith requested several years of email among the study’s authors, Sullivan turned off the information spigot. "We have provided all of the information the committee needs to understand this issue," says Ciaran Clayton, a NOAA spokesperson.

Standoff! Cue the Morricone music and two policymakers squinting at each other from opposite ends of the National Mall. Except a Nov. 4 letter from Smith threatened Sullivan with “civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms” if she didn’t comply by Friday, Nov. 6. The deadline whooshed by. NOAA scientists and other officials have agreed to interviews with the committee staff, according to Clayton (who is among the subpoenaed).

Sullivan wasn't available for an interview for this story, according to Clayton. A spokesperson for Smith said the representative would only answer questions submitted in writing.

The House Science Committee is…not united. “It’s a waste of time,” says Eddie Bernice Johnson, ranking Democrat on the committee. “The NOAA people have attempted to comply. They’ve wheeled in so many cartons of material that it’s gotten to be a burden to these agencies. He can just come and look at any of this material, but he doesn’t want to. He wants it sent over.”

Andrew Rosenberg, a former NOAA fisheries scientist, says the outcome of this fight between a Republican climate-denier and the agency responsible for taking climate measurements could result in a chilling effect on all government scientists, as well as those who work (or email) with them.

“It’s telling them that, as a scientist, if you work on anything controversial, that you should have a legal fund,” says Rosenberg, now with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Scientists toss around ideas on an email. So what? It’s pretty easy to take that stuff out of context and make political hay out of it.”

“I have wondered if part of this is motivated by some assertive staff, or is it really him?” says Johnson of Smith. She hopes that the recent shakeup in the GOP leadership might provide Smith with a new committee assignment. “People say, ‘how can you serve on the science committee when there are so many there that don’t believe in science?’” Johnson says. “Some of us believe in science.”

For now, Smith has a trump card, If he doesn't get what he wants, he can hold Sullivan in contempt of congress and ask for a full vote of the House. (The same thing happened to former attorney general Eric Holder and IRS official Lois Lerner.) Eventually, the whole shootout could become the problem of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.